NationStates Jolt Archive

This is cross-posted at my blog (http://incertus.blogspot.com).

I've changed my mind on this--the Electoral College has got to go.

I know the arguments in favor of it--without it, small states will be ignored in favor of large urban areas with easy access to advertising, blah blah blah. I don't care anymore. We need to go to a direct election of the President, complete with a runoff if no one gets 50%+1 of the vote. None of this tossing it to the House if we don't go for more than 50%. Sure, it will be a major overhaul of the Constitution to make it happen, but hell, the religious nutjobs in this country want to enshrine homophobia in the Constitution, so what's a little direct election among enemies?

So what's brought this on? After all, if we'd had a direct election system in place for the November election, all the Ohio recounts in the world wouldn't make a bit of difference, right?

But it would. First off--if we're talking about direct election of the President, then the ruckus over electronic voting would be a much larger issue. It wouldn't be dismissed as a Florida thing, or a conspiracy theory thing. Everyone with the slightest bit of distrust for the government--and that encompasses a large part of the voters on both sides--would be clamoring for transparency and an auditable paper trail. Go visit the Free Republic if you want to see government fueled paranoia run amok--they make the Black Box Voting people look like staid academics. You want something resembling a transparent presidential election? Get rid of the Electoral College.

Secondly, the country has changed so much since the institution of the Electoral College in terms of communication technology that keeping with that antiquated system makes no sense whatsoever. I can read about politics--indepth--on my cell phone. I did it today while I was at work. I can keep up with current events in a way I couldn't have imagined twelve years ago when I was selling cell phones at Sears--the kind with a bag and shoulder strap. Politicians who want to get me their message have more options and more avenues than I can even think of, and I'm a poor guy, financially speaking. So why should I take part in a system where my vote, because I live in a "safe state" (God, how I hate that term now) is symbolically valuable, but practically meaningless?

But here's the biggest reason I want to get rid of the electoral college. As long as the electoral college exists, political professionals will continue to divide up the country as though it's some oversized game of Risk, parceling out safe states to the two big players, and skirmishing over the swing states in order to control the country. Neither of the big parties wants to change the system, because they both know that if the dice roll comes out for them, they can win for a while. The Ed Gillespies and Bob Shrums of the world count on that for their electoral strategies--narrow the field and concentrate your forces on a precious few. Well fuck that.

I don't want forces concentrated on a narrow segment of the population--I want the largest possible population speaking out and being spoken to. I want the Republican candidate coming to California to rally the meager troops here and I want the Democratic candidate going to Texas and Alabama and Louisiana to let the progressives there know that they aren't forgotten. I'm tired of being taken for granted. I want to be fought over, damnit. I'm worth that much.

Okay, I'll admit it--there's one more reason. The fact is that if we have a direct election, more emphasis will be paid to urban areas because they're easiest to advertise to and they offer the most bang for the buck in terms of votes. But would that be a bad thing? Look at the studies about red states vs. blue states in terms of tax dollars paid in and received. The biggest welfare states (as in, receive mroe in federal tax dollars than they pay in) are the red states with sparse populations. The biggest paying states are blue states with large urban populations. If the electoral system changed, and the cities were more important politically, then suddenly both parties would be more interested in social justice and the problems with crumbling infrastructure. It wouldn't matter which party did it, in my opinion--as long as it happens, I don't care if it comes from a person with an R or a D next to his or her name.

Most importantly, what the demolition of the Electoral College would primarily do is take power away from the political professionals and would transfer it to the people at the bottom, to the 50% of wage earners who make less than $30,000 a year, because suddenly their votes would matter a whole hell of a lot more than they do now. And that, my friends, is precisely why it'll never happen.

Still, a guy can dream, can't he?

I wish it was gone too. I live in California, so my vote (if I had one) almost definitely wouldn't count, which doesn't seem democratic to me.

Welcome to the club. I've been screaming to anyone who would listen the merits of an Instant run-off system of voting for over four years now.

Of course since it makes third party candidates viable, you know the big two will do everything they can to keep it from happening.

It would also nicely sweep away the two-party system that is slowly choking the 'democracy' part out of constitutional representative democracy.

Of course that would make the US an actual democracy. Like that's ever gonna happen.

I'm still a little undecided, though I tend to lean toward keeping the system in place.

My question for those who wish to remove the EC system is how can you justify removing the EC without making changes to the Senate? Or does the Senate need changed, too?

The Senate is a justifiable balance considering the presence of both the House and (if the EC were eliminated) the president/vice president pair in the legislative process.

I'm still a little undecided, though I tend to lean toward keeping the system in place.

My question for those who wish to remove the EC system is how can you justify removing the EC without making changes to the Senate? Or does the Senate need changed, too?Equating the senate with the EC is a fallacy. Each state has two senators but the number of electorial votes is based upon population that's why california has 55 electorial votes. The EC actually has more in common with the House of representatives.

It actually began as a way for the southern states to get some political clout for the 3/5 of a person they were able to count for each slave. Why would we want to keep such an antiquated and flawed system?

There are better alternatives than instant runoff voting. You're just asking for more problems with that one.

There are better alternatives than instant runoff voting. You're just asking for more problems with that one.well you opened your mouth, elaborate!

2 lazy :[

but http://electionmethods.org/

2 lazy :[

but http://electionmethods.org/The arguement against IRV is weak, the Condorcet method is too complicated to actually have a chance at being implimented. True it is a better method but it really is just a more elaborate IRV. Better to impliment IRV then later when everyone's comfortable with it amend it to a Condorcet method if there is a strong enough call to do so.

dudes!? Why should DC recieve the same amout of electoral votes as the state of Wyoming even though it has about THREE TIMES the population of Wyoming?? And what about places like Guam, The Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico? EC has got to go. :headbang:

I hadn't really given this much thought but I'm fairly swayed so far into agreeing that the electoral college has more negatives than positives. Then again, I can usually be counted on to think of the negatives.

The arguement against IRV is weak, the Condorcet method is too complicated to actually have a chance at being implimented. True it is a better method but it really is just a more elaborate IRV. Better to impliment IRV then later when everyone's comfortable with it amend it to a Condorcet method if there is a strong enough call to do so.

the argument against irv didn't seem weak to me. we know that run-off elections, instant or otherwise, throw up weird results. check out the last french presidential election.

I'm still a little undecided, though I tend to lean toward keeping the system in place.

My question for those who wish to remove the EC system is how can you justify removing the EC without making changes to the Senate? Or does the Senate need changed, too?
The Senate is the place where the small states still have the ability to hang with the big boys, so to speak. I don't want to change that--I'm a big believer in protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

What I'm really looking to do is expand the playing field as far as the Presidential election is concerned. Anyone living in a swing state can tell you the extent to which they were inundated with ads this last political season--to the point where many people largely tuned them out. I've got to think that played a role as to why such a large percentage of people were misinformed about the important issues in the election. If the entire country is suddenly in play instead of just a few states, we just might have to start dealing with issues instead of soundbites.

But if nothing else, politicians will go where the largest number of votes are, and that's the cities. Politicians all do one thing well--pander--and if this is the best way to get them to pander to the poorer citizens, then let's get to it.

The arguement against IRV is weak, the Condorcet method is too complicated to actually have a chance at being implimented. True it is a better method but it really is just a more elaborate IRV. Better to impliment IRV then later when everyone's comfortable with it amend it to a Condorcet method if there is a strong enough call to do so.

It strikes me that the complicated part of Condorcet voting isn't the actual vote; it's totaling the votes. And yes, with many precincts using punch-card ballots that may or may not be computer-counted, it is too complicated. However, with computers in use everywhere (and a paper trail, or maybe e-mail trail, whatever works) it could work. The vote itself looks pretty simple - just rank the candidates in order of preference. Nothing complicated about that.

the argument against irv didn't seem weak to me. we know that run-off elections, instant or otherwise, throw up weird results. check out the last french presidential election.
That was caused not by the system, but by lack of general voter turnout.

That was caused not by the system, but by lack of general voter turnout.

really it was caused by the left splitting its vote and there not being a preference ranking system.

but in any case, irv's ranking system doesn't do much better, as voting for your guy as a first choice can cause both them and your second choice to lose. any voting system that has a spoiler effect is a broken voting system.

really it was caused by the left splitting its vote and there not being a preference ranking system.

but in any case, irv's ranking system doesn't do much better, as voting for your guy as a first choice can cause both them and your second choice to lose. any voting system that has a spoiler effect is a broken voting system.

Yes, this also reminds of when team h4x0r and team 1337 split the awesomeXcore vote when it was clear that team 1337 was going to win based on their awesomeness, if team h4x0r weren't around.

Yes, this also reminds of when team h4x0r and team 1337 split the awesomeXcore vote when it was clear that team 1337 was going to win based on their awesomeness, if team h4x0r weren't around.

yeah, that sucked. especially because team omfg! wound up winning on the slogan "why vote for a crook over a fascist when you can have both?"

yeah, that sucked. especially because team omfg! wound up winning on the slogan "why vote for a crook over a fascist when you can have both?"

When will La Française learn? :mad:

Well I just logged on to save my account from being deleted. Come to check the message board, and what do I find but this. This proposal, my friends, is not the way for the US to go.

Incertonia,

You did not present a compelling argument, or any argument really, countering the assertion that all camapigning would be done in big cities. At first you brushed it aside to further the rest of your theory, then came back and stated that such a campaign style would actually be a good thing for the country. And I found the argument you made somewhat laughable, but really more sad than anything. It's your assertion that since blue states are more "payers" than "receivers", or whatever such terms are used, they should be ignored. [Aside: it is obvious that most economic power will be concentrated in large urban centers; this may have correlation with a certain ideology but it certainly doesn't have causation. Therefore blue staters should feel no special sense of entitlement simply because of where they live.] Your plan to provide everyone with "social justice" and fix "crumbling infrastructure" would turn this country more Europe than Europe is. I'm sure you'd like that just fine, but why does the government have to be the one to do these things? I would like to stay as far away from the creation of a nanny state for as long as possible. Your electoral college abolishment plan would, admittedly by you, speed the country in a more socialist direction. I am not ok with that, and it's so transparent that I'm sure a majority of the country agrees.

So again we come round to your bypassing that most important electoral issue... giving less densely populated areas a say. I've rejected above your idea that it's a good thing to give them less of a say. Your point about "safe" states and "battleground" states is well taken, and I agree that it's been frustrating to me as well this election cycle. But this system, with its flaws, still creates much more of a heterogeneous campaigning ground than would a direct popular vote. I think you are trying to bury this point as you paint your grand vision of being fought over, campaigns caring, etc. But it's the most important point, and it should not be buried! With your plan, I still won't be fought over if I don't live in Chi, LA, NYC, Philly, Hou, DFW, etc. And that is not good for this country.


The above are really the most important things that need to be said in response to this issue. Below are a few minor points.

-The idea that a direct election would take power out of the hands of the political professionals. What makes you think this would really be the case? Your assertion is that these professionals are one trick ponies, and you assume they wouldn't be able to learn any new tricks. Overall, this argument is less than compelling given the far more important issue above.

-The beginning of your post when you referred to conspiracy theories. I was going to mention this way earlier, but found vastly more important ideological issues that needed to be addressed first. Basically, I fail to see how a direct election would change the transparency of the ballots, as you say. In fact, instead of speeding up the process of creating transparency, I see it slowing down with a much larger area in which to implement a uniform change. But overall, I see this as an issue that time and experience will fix. Not everything was going to be gotten right this election cycle (and as an aside, it needs to be said that "gotten wrong" or "right" does not indicate any fraud for the benefit of any particular candidate, but rather glitches that happened and can be fixed). But we have four years to fix those problems. And they'll be fixed. And maybe we'll find more bugs next time. And the system will be perfected further. I just don't think the type of national election we have is a significant variable.


That's pretty much it.

Why stop there? Why not go whole hog and eliminate political parties for most practical purposes and just hold a national election where any voter could vote for anyone they wanted to, then hold a run-off election for the top two vote-getters?

I agree the Electoral vote has to go. This year's electoral vote went 53%-47%, when the popular vote went 51.2%-48.8%

After the election, I found the resident population of each state, and the number of electoral votes. I did the number of electoral votes divided by the number of residents. This gives each person's value in the electoral congress by electoral vote. You'll be suprised (or not suprised) to know there was definitely an imbalance of power... The most power citizens in the US live in: WYOMING. Then second is Washington D.C. THird is Alaska. THe least powerful respectively are California, Texas, and New York. TO give you an idea, Wyoming is 4 times more powerful that California.

So what happens when the electoral college is adjusted appropriately? You get about 1500 votes in the electoral college, and Bush winning, suprisingly (or not suprisingly, 51.2% - 48.8%!!

So in this light I propose that since abolishing the Electoral College is a radical idea, for the time being we should reform it, in order to more accurately portray the actual vote.

I'd have to dig up my findings somewhere in my manilla folders, but I have the present representation of people in the electoral college, and how many electoral votes each state would have if adjusted appropriately.

really it was caused by the left splitting its vote and there not being a preference ranking system.

but in any case, irv's ranking system doesn't do much better, as voting for your guy as a first choice can cause both them and your second choice to lose. any voting system that has a spoiler effect is a broken voting system.
That's a fallacy, IRV actually does a better job of eliminating the spoiler than any other system. The scenario in Onawa's link is questionable, the same thing is likely to happen with the Condorcet method, it all depends on how others vote.

But then that's what elections are for aren't they. Your guy doesn't always win. Any method that guarateed that would be horridly flawed.

This crap about the EC protecting rural areas and smaller states confuses the hell out of me. People the EC is based upon population! The larger areas have more EC votes! It's not even based upon the number of registered voters or those who do vote but just general census figures. Rural America would do better with a popular vote!

This crap about the EC protecting rural areas and smaller states confuses the hell out of me. People the EC is based upon population! The larger areas have more EC votes! It's not even based upon the number of registered voters or those who do vote but just general census figures. Rural America would do better with a popular vote!

Check my above post. The EC votes are not properly adjusted.

We should get rid of the Senate and The House of Representatives.
Elect a King & Queen who are extremely liberal.
And then we could force everyone to think what we want them to.

Check my above post. The EC votes are not properly adjusted.That's only because of the large number of constituants that each EC represents and a minimum assigned to each state. I'd hardly call wyomings, what is it 3?, EC votes a lot of political clout. It harldy justifies the inherant flaws in the system. As far as I can see the only reason to keep it around is that it might give the candidate you favor some edge, give him the win when he loses the popular vote.

Come on, lets level the playing field. Don't we have a higher standard to conform to? How can we complain about rigged elections in other countries when our own system is flawed?

off topic, sort of. But here in the frozen north, when we elect our leader, everyday parliament is in session he has to stand there and face a barrage of questions from the opposition, doesn't accomplish much but it keeps them honest, maybe you should just steal the british parliamentry system. Imagine, California could elect a bunch of pissed off hippies and Bush would have to sit there and listen to them everyday, it would be the theater of the absurd.

For all Popular Vote advocates:

Listen! We do need to be rid of the Electoral College - however IMHO a 'Preferential Vote' would be the best alternative

People would rank the candidates (INCLUDING 3rd-Party) based on their preference; here's mine as an example

1) Michael Badnarik / Campagna (Libertarian)
2) George Bush / Cheney (Republican)
3) John Kerry / John Edwards (Democrat)
4) Ralph Nader / Camejo (Independant)
5) etc
6) etc

The top-ranked vote of a person receives the most amount of pts possible; the 2nd the 2nd-most; and so on

The winner would be the candidate with the most points. This way, the country can gather around a leader who most of them prefer to a degree or another

Change is possible – all you need is for the incumbent government to know that they’ll lose under the existing system, but would win under a fairer scheme.
What you need to do now is work out a system that will be popular with most Americans, and/or widely understood, so that implementing it isn’t seen as fixing the vote. Alternatively, work out two systems, pandering to each major party’s prejudices, so as to ensure support from a powerful party.

In OZ, the Govt has the right to call elections whenever they feel like it; so they call them when they’re most popular to improve their chances of winning (or wait out the full 3 year turn if it looks like they’re doomed).
We nearly got rid of this earlier this year – the Govt proposed fixed terms, which most Australians would prefer (fewer elections=good). Why? Because they were sure they were going to lose the next election, so wanted to level the playing field for when they were in opposition. Sadly, they were blocked by the existing opposition (who must now feel very stupid – certainly they look it) but we’ll get another chance later.

Oh, if you want to protect the rights of minorities – get a decent preferential system! First past the post is an archaic joke!

The greatest problem with the electoral college is that it is simply avoiding the strength of representative democracy. The electoral college inherently does not consider margin of victory in each state (except Maine and Nebraska). In other words, if George Bush wins Florida by 1000 votes, he still gets all 27 of their electoral votes; but if Al Gore wins Massachussetts by 500,000 votes, he still only gets their 12 votes. George Bush wins the election even though he didn't get more popular votes. Because of this, candidates concentrate mainly on winning the close states and the big states. If they win a state by 1 vote or 1,000,000 votes they still get the same number of electoral votes. So they concentrate their case for earning people's votes on big, battle-ground states.
So the Democrats never make a real case to Oklahoma voters that they should vote for John Kerry, and the Republicasn never make a real case to Rhode Island voters that they should vote for Bush. Then the parties represent different demographics instead of representing different political ideas. That is why the country is "divided." Neither party has any need of getting its message to the other side.
The strength of representative democracy is that the leaders of the various ideologies, parties, and political plans have to convince the people that their ideas are best. The way to do this is to use reason. If they don't, they don't survive the election system; but with the electoral college, candidates don't have to appeal to their voters through reason because the other party isn't appealing to them at all. The electorate becomes divided because each party only rallies the voters who are already on its side, instead of convincing the voters on the other side as well.

That's a fallacy, IRV actually does a better job of eliminating the spoiler than any other system. The scenario in Onawa's link is questionable, the same thing is likely to happen with the Condorcet method, it all depends on how others vote.

But then that's what elections are for aren't they. Your guy doesn't always win. Any method that guarateed that would be horridly flawed.

no, it isn't and no, it doesn't. it's good at eliminating the spoiler effect when third parties don't stand a snowball's chance in hell, but when they do become popular enough to win elections it brings it right back.

and i don't mean to suggest that your guy should always win in an election, but rather that a voting system which encourages insincere votes is a bad voting system. of course, i'd also hold that having single member positions of any sort is generally a bad idea.

That's only because of the large number of constituants that each EC represents and a minimum assigned to each state. I'd hardly call wyomings, what is it 3?, EC votes a lot of political clout. It harldy justifies the inherant flaws in the system. As far as I can see the only reason to keep it around is that it might give the candidate you favor some edge, give him the win when he loses the popular vote.

Come on, lets level the playing field. Don't we have a higher standard to conform to? How can we complain about rigged elections in other countries when our own system is flawed?

3 does not sound like a lot, but with Wyoming's population of about 400,000, it is 4 times more than New York's 55 with 20,000,000 people.

Equating the senate with the EC is a fallacy. Each state has two senators but the number of electorial votes is based upon population that's why california has 55 electorial votes. The EC actually has more in common with the House of representatives.

It actually began as a way for the southern states to get some political clout for the 3/5 of a person they were able to count for each slave. Why would we want to keep such an antiquated and flawed system?

The number of electoral votes each state receives is exactly how many senators each state has (always two) + how many representatives each state has (a minimum of one), which is why the minimun amount of EC votes a state gets is three. So the EC is already a compromise. However, in general, the EC gives the smaller states a greater (in some cases a much greater) say than what they would if the vote was based on population. It protects small states in the same way that the existence of the senate protects small states, but to a significantly lesser degree.

The Senate is a justifiable balance considering the presence of both the House and (if the EC were eliminated) the president/vice president pair in the legislative process.

This is an interesting argument, which, I'm not yet sure if I agree with you on. Obviously, the idea of the Senate is that is protects smaller states.

So who's to say what the right amount of protection is? I don't know the answer. Is the Senate enough? Or is the additional protection in the EC necessary? I'm sure that one argument that pro-Ecers would give is that the smaller states need protection in both the legislative and executive branchs.

In actuality, the existence of the Senate gives small states far greater influence than the EC system. In the senate, small states have exactly equal say with big states (Alaska gets the exact same say as California!). Also, the Senate meets for a good chunk of every year (I don't know the exact amount of time-I'm sure it varies), whereas elections occur only once every four years and elections where presidents win the popular vote and still lose the electoral vote occur even less frequently.

This isn't meant as an argument either way (no matter what it sounds like), just something to think about. Also, I realize that the issue of the EC protecting small states isn't the only issue to discuss on this topic. Interestingly enough, in this last election, the EC arguably hurt the small states. Bush won the small state vote and had a pretty good popular vote lead, but would have lost if Ohio had been different by 100,000 or so votes.

The Senate is the place where the small states still have the ability to hang with the big boys, so to speak. I don't want to change that--I'm a big believer in protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

What I'm really looking to do is expand the playing field as far as the Presidential election is concerned. Anyone living in a swing state can tell you the extent to which they were inundated with ads this last political season--to the point where many people largely tuned them out. I've got to think that played a role as to why such a large percentage of people were misinformed about the important issues in the election. If the entire country is suddenly in play instead of just a few states, we just might have to start dealing with issues instead of soundbites.

But if nothing else, politicians will go where the largest number of votes are, and that's the cities. Politicians all do one thing well--pander--and if this is the best way to get them to pander to the poorer citizens, then let's get to it.

That's a good point.

Why look at Australia's system and take IRV as a proposed model for electing a president? Why not instead implement a system similar to Australia's senate, Single Transferable Voting which would allow for the electoral college to be kept, while still getting a final result more similar to the popular vote. Much like Charles de Montesquieu said, the problem isn't the EC, it is the way the EC is divided- in theory a candidate can get 26% of popular vote and win the election, because 26% of the popular vote can still give you the majority of the EC. I know in practice it would never be that bad, but to have even the potential for such an undemocratic result is ridiculous, in my opinion.

As for IRV and STV having the potential for spoiler effects? Well they do if people don't vote honestly, but with honest preferences, especially between minor parties the spoiler effect is minimised. Even if it still remains only a Democratic or a Republican in power, the fact is, they will have to appeal to minor parties to maintain their support. They will have to make compromises with minorities, rather than just do things according to the plurality of opinion, it maximises the winners and even though some people will still obviously be upset hopefully the majority of people, not the plurality will agree with the decisions made by the nation's leadership.

Personally I do think that the "protecting the smaller states" argument is flawed, yes America is made up of states. But vote power should be based upon population, not geographic area and imaginary boundaries. Just because people are hicks, that doesn't mean their opinion any more OR less valid than city dwellers. I know the USA has a history and name built around the individual states, but I think that most Americans nowadays are more proud of their nation and willing to fight for their nation than they are proud of their state and willing to fight for their state.

I do like Condorcet voting, by the way, but I also think a lot of the criticisms that are being levelled at IRV and STV aren't overly true and that there are flaws in all voting systems. Because in someways any system that gives multiple minorities the power to unite against the plurality is even worse than a system that ignores the minorities. If my gay rights group agrees to support forests if the environmental group supports gay rights when really neither group cares either way about the issues of the other. Then united we can crush a more popular group by voting together against them, then how is that any better than the more popular group being able to control things to start with? The rights of minorities usually only matters to minorities, so that is why the majority of people will probably never care enough to change the voting system.

Well I just logged on to save my account from being deleted. Come to check the message board, and what do I find but this. This proposal, my friends, is not the way for the US to go.

Incertonia,

You did not present a compelling argument, or any argument really, countering the assertion that all camapigning would be done in big cities. At first you brushed it aside to further the rest of your theory, then came back and stated that such a campaign style would actually be a good thing for the country. And I found the argument you made somewhat laughable, but really more sad than anything. It's your assertion that since blue states are more "payers" than "receivers", or whatever such terms are used, they should be ignored. [Aside: it is obvious that most economic power will be concentrated in large urban centers; this may have correlation with a certain ideology but it certainly doesn't have causation. Therefore blue staters should feel no special sense of entitlement simply because of where they live.] Your plan to provide everyone with "social justice" and fix "crumbling infrastructure" would turn this country more Europe than Europe is. I'm sure you'd like that just fine, but why does the government have to be the one to do these things? I would like to stay as far away from the creation of a nanny state for as long as possible. Your electoral college abolishment plan would, admittedly by you, speed the country in a more socialist direction. I am not ok with that, and it's so transparent that I'm sure a majority of the country agrees. I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I'm actually saying that the major campaigning would be done in the major cities, and that that would be a good thing in the long run, because it would force politicians to actually pay attention to the urban centers again. And I actually argue that blue states that pay in more taxes than they receive in federal aid need to get more attention from politicians--California, New York and New Jersey are getting raped and they get little or no attention from presidential politicians because they're safely Democratic.

I will admit that what you're calling socialism is the direction I would like to see the country take--even though it's not socialism by a longshot. One last point. If you look at the polls taken on this subject over the last 40 or 50 years, they overwhelmingly favor the removal of the Electoral college. The last time it was seriously considered was during the Nixon administration, and the House passed it by 81% and three-quarters of the states backed it. The only sticking point was the Senate, where it died. You might want to check your history next time before making that claim.

So again we come round to your bypassing that most important electoral issue... giving less densely populated areas a say. I've rejected above your idea that it's a good thing to give them less of a say. Your point about "safe" states and "battleground" states is well taken, and I agree that it's been frustrating to me as well this election cycle. But this system, with its flaws, still creates much more of a heterogeneous campaigning ground than would a direct popular vote. I think you are trying to bury this point as you paint your grand vision of being fought over, campaigns caring, etc. But it's the most important point, and it should not be buried! With your plan, I still won't be fought over if I don't live in Chi, LA, NYC, Philly, Hou, DFW, etc. And that is not good for this country.

The above are really the most important things that need to be said in response to this issue. Below are a few minor points.

-The idea that a direct election would take power out of the hands of the political professionals. What makes you think this would really be the case? Your assertion is that these professionals are one trick ponies, and you assume they wouldn't be able to learn any new tricks. Overall, this argument is less than compelling given the far more important issue above.

-The beginning of your post when you referred to conspiracy theories. I was going to mention this way earlier, but found vastly more important ideological issues that needed to be addressed first. Basically, I fail to see how a direct election would change the transparency of the ballots, as you say. In fact, instead of speeding up the process of creating transparency, I see it slowing down with a much larger area in which to implement a uniform change. But overall, I see this as an issue that time and experience will fix. Not everything was going to be gotten right this election cycle (and as an aside, it needs to be said that "gotten wrong" or "right" does not indicate any fraud for the benefit of any particular candidate, but rather glitches that happened and can be fixed). But we have four years to fix those problems. And they'll be fixed. And maybe we'll find more bugs next time. And the system will be perfected further. I just don't think the type of national election we have is a significant variable.

That's pretty much it.
I don't think that the political professionals will lose their power, but it will cause them to rethink strategy. They won't be able to pick and choose where they fight their battles anymore because the battlefield will be thrown wide open.

As to the electronic voting issue, the effect I think a direct election will have on voting transparency is that it will get the psychos on both sides to hold their politicians feet to the fire on the issue because both sides will be thinking the worst of the other party. If we make it a winner take all country-wide election, then there will likely be a nation-wide for the ultimate in election transparency. Let's be honest--even though this should be a bipartisan issue, it's being pushed by the Democratic party and held up in the Congress by the Republicans. The only way to change that is to get the paranoid people on both sides screaming about it, and I really think that the best way to get them screaming is to go to a direct election.

While we are at it, we should massively increase the number of reps too.

There are far too few scattered among too many people. It just leads to gerrymandering, non repsonsiveness and a whole host of other evils.

Look at the UK, it commons has more MPs than the house of reps, and its population is a fraction of ours.

There are too many safe seats in the US.

While we are at it, we should massively increase the number of reps too.

There are far too few scattered among too many people. It just leads to gerrymandering, non repsonsiveness and a whole host of other evils.

Look at the UK, it commons has more MPs than the house of reps, and its population is a fraction of ours.

There are too many safe seats in the US.
I'm with you on that. I really dislike the idea that some states have only one representative, and I'd really like to see a requirement that districts be drawn along geographic boundaries instead of based on political considerations. No safe districts--make them all competitive as much as possible. There will be some exceptions--it doesn't matter how you draw the district around San Francisco because a Democrat is going to win that every time, and there are districts that are the same for Republicans as well, but we can make more of them competitive than we have now.

Just as kind of a reply to this thread, but more for educational purposes to all who have and will post here and in similar threads:

1. You DO NOT have a federally guaranteed right under the U.S. Constitution to vote for president, rather it is your state's electors that have that right.

2. How the state's electors are chosen is a matter of state constitutional and election law. Assuming there was no violation of the state's constitution, theoretically, a state could legislate that all the state's electors were (for example) appointed by the governor of the state and that presidential elections were going to be done away with completely. It is only through tradition and history state law and a belief in democracy that your individual vote for president has any meaning at all.

3. 49 (if I'm counting right) states require that their state's electors ALL cast their votes in favor of the person who won the popular election in the state.

4. The "easiest" way (and even this would likely be hard in most states) to get a truly popular vote election in place would be to change state law/constitutions to permit a state to divide it's electoral votes between candidates based on some sort of percentage formula (i.e. you state has 3 electoral votes and G.B. wins 51% of the state's popular vote, then your state casts 2 electoral votes for G.B. and one for J.K.)

5. The Electoral College (IMHO) is good in that it does ensure that smaller, less populace states have a voice and that the candidates must pay attention to those states rather than focus their efforts on N.Y. city, L.A., Dallas, Houston, St. Louis, New Orleans, San Francisco, etc. exclusively. I find it interesting that those who would do away with the Electoral College in favor of a completely popular vote deciding the outcome will (typically IMHO) decry a completely popular vote that impacts on abortion rights, gay marriage issues, gun control, etc. If the will of the numeric majority of the country is proper to decided who is president, why isn't the will of the numeric majority proper to decide who can have an abortion and when? Why isn't it proper to decide who can be legally married? Why isn't it proper to decide who gets to own guns and under what circumstances? If you want a totally and "pure" democratic society, then it must apply across the board. If you want to pick and choose what is decided in a totally democratic fashion and what is not, then you must concede that others have the same right and the founders of the country and state legisatures since then, have set up a system whereby they "picked and chose" what would be "totally democratic" and what wouldn't.

OK, I know, point 5 turns into a diatribe and starts to ramble at the end, its 1:30 a.m. here and I'm tired, but I needed to finish by saying something. Bottom line, I favor the electoral college, but have not problem with a rule that lets, or even requires, a state divide it's electoral votes. In such a situation the popular vote becomes more important, but the smaller states are still, in general, "protected" from dominance by the larger states. Oh, and btw, Just because a state has less people living in than another (Idaho vs. N.Y. for example, doesn't automatically mean, IMHO, that, that state should have any less of a voice than any other. Whatever a president does affects them equally (at least on a pro-rata basis) as it does any other state.

OK, rant's over, thanks for listening. :headbang:

EDIT: Oh yeah, of course the "blue" states pay more in taxes, they have more f'ing people, more people=more income=more taxes. Duhhh!! Just because, cash wise, they may receive less $$ than a smaller state, doesn't mean that, equitable distribution wise, they are getting screwed. If I have $1,000 in the bank and some one gives me $10 it doesn't mean I've been cheated when the other person involved only has $10 in the bank and they are given $1,000. We both end up with $1,010, we just got it differently and based upon what we already had.

My arguements for keeping the EC (they are all over the board).

1) Removing the EC would effectively reduce all campaigning to cities. No right thinking politician would spend time in Wyoming, Montana, ND, Alaska, etc. because the people are simply too spread out. Their is no efficient way to get the message out. Not that they recieve much attention anyway, but a change to popular vote would end the Northern Plains' role in presidential elections.

2) The EC enhances the voice of minorities. A switch to popular vote would quiet the role of minorities in politics. A quick and general breakdown of the demographics is that most minorities are concentrated in the urban centers, While Middle America is fairly bleached. So in an election the percentages of minorities in key states is higher than it would be in a general election. Consider it the Elian Gonzales effect, candidates have to pay attention to the local issues of minority groups if they want to carry the national election.

3) not really an arguement for the EC, but more a plea to drop the Wyoming vote is the most powerful thing. If anyone can honestly say they believe a ballot cast in Cheyenne carried more weight than one cast in Canton this year I would say you are delusional.

4) I personally have no faith in the average American voter. Churchill has a decent point when he said the best arguement against democracy is to talk to the average voter for 10 minutes. Any means in which the system can place safeguards against the ever changing masses the better.

Lastly, whoever calls people who live in rural area 'hicks' i implore you to stop. All you do is show your childish ignorance.

5. The Electoral College (IMHO) is good in that it does ensure that smaller, less populace states have a voice and that the candidates must pay attention to those states rather than focus their efforts on N.Y. city, L.A., Dallas, Houston, St. Louis, New Orleans, San Francisco, etc. exclusively. I find it interesting that those who would do away with the Electoral College in favor of a completely popular vote deciding the outcome will (typically IMHO) decry a completely popular vote that impacts on abortion rights, gay marriage issues, gun control, etc. If the will of the numeric majority of the country is proper to decided who is president, why isn't the will of the numeric majority proper to decide who can have an abortion and when? Why isn't it proper to decide who can be legally married? Why isn't it proper to decide who gets to own guns and under what circumstances? If you want a totally and "pure" democratic society, then it must apply across the board. If you want to pick and choose what is decided in a totally democratic fashion and what is not, then you must concede that others have the same right and the founders of the country and state legisatures since then, have set up a system whereby they "picked and chose" what would be "totally democratic" and what wouldn't.

OK, I know, point 5 turns into a diatribe and starts to ramble at the end, its 1:30 a.m. here and I'm tired, but I needed to finish by saying something. Bottom line, I favor the electoral college, but have not problem with a rule that lets, or even requires, a state divide it's electoral votes. In such a situation the popular vote becomes more important, but the smaller states are still, in general, "protected" from dominance by the larger states. Oh, and btw, Just because a state has less people living in than another (Idaho vs. N.Y. for example, doesn't automatically mean, IMHO, that, that state should have any less of a voice than any other. Whatever a president does affects them equally (at least on a pro-rata basis) as it does any other state.

OK, rant's over, thanks for listening. :headbang:

EDIT: Oh yeah, of course the "blue" states pay more in taxes, they have more f'ing people, more people=more income=more taxes. Duhhh!! Just because, cash wise, they may receive less $$ than a smaller state, doesn't mean that, equitable distribution wise, they are getting screwed. If I have $1,000 in the bank and some one gives me $10 it doesn't mean I've been cheated when the other person involved only has $10 in the bank and they are given $1,000. We both end up with $1,010, we just got it differently and based upon what we already had.I'm only going to reply to number 5 and the edit because the first four basically deal with the way to get to a popular vote rather than the necessity for it or against it.

You ask why, if a popular vote would be good enough to determine the presidency, why wouldn't it be good enough to decide human rights issues like abortion or gay marriage? The answer is quite simple--a presidential election only involves the election of a person, okay two, who will set the general tone and direction of the nation, and whose decisions can be repudiated both by the populace at large and by the Congress or the courts. His or her power can be balanced by the other branches of government. But legislation by the mob, that is, the unruly citizenry who can vote themselves bread and circuses if they so choose, if they are given the power, can exercise tyranny over a hapless minority if they so choose. Not to mention--they just make bad law. I live in California, where we have a relatively easy time putting initiatives before the voters, and let me tell you, it's a nightmare.

As to your edit, you obviously don't understand what I'm talking about. In general, the most populous states tend to pay in more than they get back in federal taxes. For instance--and I'm going from memory here--California pays in something like $1.16 for every $1.00 it gets back in federal taxes, while a state like Wyoming pays in something like $0.72 for every $1.00 they get back. Since the most populous states tend to be blue (Florida and Texas are the most obvious exceptions here), the blue states tend to get hosed in this deal.

My arguements for keeping the EC (they are all over the board).

1) Removing the EC would effectively reduce all campaigning to cities. No right thinking politician would spend time in Wyoming, Montana, ND, Alaska, etc. because the people are simply too spread out. Their is no efficient way to get the message out. Not that they recieve much attention anyway, but a change to popular vote would end the Northern Plains' role in presidential elections.

2) The EC enhances the voice of minorities. A switch to popular vote would quiet the role of minorities in politics. A quick and general breakdown of the demographics is that most minorities are concentrated in the urban centers, While Middle America is fairly bleached. So in an election the percentages of minorities in key states is higher than it would be in a general election. Consider it the Elian Gonzales effect, candidates have to pay attention to the local issues of minority groups if they want to carry the national election.

3) not really an arguement for the EC, but more a plea to drop the Wyoming vote is the most powerful thing. If anyone can honestly say they believe a ballot cast in Cheyenne carried more weight than one cast in Canton this year I would say you are delusional.

4) I personally have no faith in the average American voter. Churchill has a decent point when he said the best arguement against democracy is to talk to the average voter for 10 minutes. Any means in which the system can place safeguards against the ever changing masses the better.

1. they have this crazy new invention called "tele-vision" these days. it promises to revolutionize advertizing by being able to send a message to millions of people all at the same time over huge amounts of area.

1a. and when exactly was the last time anybody spent any amount of time in wyoming or alaska anyways? unless i am seriously mistaken, nobody even went to any of those states at all this time and haven't for decades, except sometimes as a single real short stop on their way to somewhere else. all small states with large areas are already completely and utterly ignored, and only addressed in general terms elsewhere. and yet somehow they still have high levels of voter participation. people don't vote based on whether the candidate personally visits them, but rather whether the candidate holds a position similar to their own on the issues they feel to be important.

2. tell that to the residents of the pine ridge rez in south dakota. by drawing up arbitrary boundries and creating essentially a two level election system, the ec actually just makes sure that minorities in most states can be safely ignored. hell, they're largely ignored even when they are vital to a candidate winning.

3. seriously. the ec makes sure that people in small states have essentially no power at all to decide an election compared to the power it gives to large states - particularly if they like to swing. and now we've gotten sophisticated enough to know exactly which particular tiny parts of a large swing state are most likely to determine the outcome of an election.

4. you should check out the condorcet method, you might find it interesting.

Yeah, the congress has read this article and they are already writing a amendment to disband the electoral college.
All thanks to this guy that had the gaul to write an entire article based on the flaws and inaccuracies in the electoral system. This man has a vision that no one has ever thought of before. He should be praised for such a revolutionary idea.

Getting rid of the Electoral College. Man what will they think up next? A nation-wide amendment that bans gay marriage even though it's already banned in most of the nation already?